How many times have people, including our elected "representatives" parroted that phrase to assure people that they "only" want to create some "common sense gun safety regulations"? While some few of those mouthing that catchphrase may actually believe it, I believe most are, in reality all-out banners of all civilian firearm ownership.

Occasionally an anti-firearm ownership individual will actually state their position re banning firearms. If anyone ever is told "no one wants to take your guns", there are a number of contradictory facts. Here is one such case, written July 2, 2014:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/02/1311173/-Gun-Control-Saving-America-From-Itself

"It was obvious to me that the solution is to completely disarm... The message is clear: substantial change is necessary and that means disarming the country... No one can own an assault gun. No one can own a pistol."

That's pretty clear. That's a clear, direct, unambiguous statement that in fact "someone does want to take away my guns". Now if only the people claiming that "no one wants to take away your guns" would just shut up using that argument. I'm guessing I might hear it again. Liars.

Well, yeah. The only logical endgame for the ideology that restricted gun access == greater public safety is Australia-esque confiscation.

While most antis that I know don't think of it that way and really do think that a 10 round mag limit on EBR's and pistols is reasonable and would increase public safety.... I'm certain that the overall strategy of some interest group is getting as close to disarming the US citizenry as it can. The more reasonably minded antis are being used as tools for that incremental agenda.

Fortunately, I don't think that group either cares enough or has the clout to ram it through. (Or has already largely accomplished what it wants.) So instead the 2nd amendment drama is getting used as a ping pong to galvanize voters on both sides. Its ironic that the left says "90% of the public approves background checks and the All Powerful Gun Lobby made it not happen! Boo Hiss at the Bloodthirsty All Powerful Gun Lobby and its pet legislators! They are destroying democracy!"

Except that the supposed "gun lobby" is actually a citizen funded lobbying organization - the NRA. The most effective of its kind. Most idiotic gun laws don't make it through congress not because of the "gun lobby" but because of the number of people that fund and agree with what the "gun lobby" is saying. Its not the "gun lobby" that punishes anti-gun legislators - its the PEOPLE. It should be hailed as an enormous win for democracy in the toxic D.C. environment where only money talks.

Of course there are people who want to take all the guns away. For the time being they are a minority. Our job is partly to make sure it stays that way.

It always boggles my mind to hear the same people who say requiring an ID to vote is racist, disenfranchises the poor, and is a monumental burden
then tell you that
applying for permits,
registering,
taking safety classes,
being affected by limits on types of guns, numbers of guns transferred in a certain time period, and types of ammo,
where you can carry or transport,
and all the other restrictions on gun ownership
are NOT infringing on the second amendment.

These people see gun ownership as a privilege, and so it is not afforded the same considerations and protections against "backdoor infringements" as the rights they agree with (or benefit from).

Id also like world peace....

"No one wants to take your guns away"? Oh, really?

Here's Senator Dianne "Frankenstein" Feinstein in her own words:

Liberals are LIARS when it comes to gun legislation. Every time they trot out that tired and used trope about "common sense reform" or "registration," it's nothing more than Orwellian double speak for banning and confiscation.

Naturally, you'll still have a few idiots that are members here STILL vote for Hillary if/when she decides to run.

Let this sink in.  We all know there are two Barack Obamas: The one who campaigns and the one who resides in the White House.  There are too many examples of how he says what he truly feels, and then says what his speech writers prepare for him on the teleprompter.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, gun rights author and scholar John Lott recounted meeting
Barack Obama for the first time while he was a lecturer at University of Chicago. 

When the two met, Lott's reputation on guns preceded him, and Lott claims Obama said,
"I don't believe people should be able to own guns."

Read that again, and let it soak in; Barack Obama reportedly said, "I don't think people should be able to own guns."
In my correspondence with Lott, he stood by his story.

And there's little reason to doubt Lott's account, especially when you take Obama's history of anti-gun legislation into account.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/18/Barack-Obama-I-Don-t-Believe-People-Should-Be-Able-Own-Guns

To bring it to a local level, I have been personally concerned about the claim that "no one wants to take away your guns" every since my state senator, Russell Ruderman, used a slight variation on that phrase in communication with me regarding last session's proposed "required mental health evaluation" bill, SB2957. After I quote from the senator, I am including my entire lenthgy email which he responded to, just so people know the kind of answer I get when I ask detailed specific questions and ask for evidence from legislators that would provide any semblance of rationality to the laws they propose. Futile, totally futile. Had the exact same thing happen with the same senator when asking why he wanted the language "unusable, unserviceable" to be included in firearms registration requirements. Is there an iota of evidence that "public safety" has ever been harmed by someone having an "unusable, unserviceable" firearm? Not a peep.

From senator Ruderman:

"Gun control is a serious issue requiring careful consideration. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners, and I also support reasonable precautions.
I assure you no one is taking away your guns or your right to bear arms."

In response to me writing this: 

Withdraw SB2957
 
Dear Senator Ruderman,
 
I find your sponsorship of SB2957 to be abhorrent. As a citizen of the United States of America who actually believes the words and intent of the Founders who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, your attempts with this bill to subvert liberty and freedom as envisioned by the Founders is irresponsible and even treasonous. You do not serve either your constituents nor American citizens in general by sponsoring such legislation. I urge you to reconsider and withdraw SB2957.
 
If you decline to renounce and withdraw SB2957 I ask you to provide any and all evidence and/or arguments, in a public forum, and/or communicate directly to me, that would support the efficacy of such a law regarding crime rates.
 
Here are my brief comments (I don't have time at the moment to go into details) about some problems with SB2957:
 
SB2957 is onerous, capricious and absurd. Not that there is anything wrong with that, or even surprising, given the irrational hoplophobia of a significant number of Hawaii legislators. Just provide one scintilla of peer-reviewed evidence that stands up to critical scrutiny that would substantiate that this legislation would have any effect at all upon crime rates.

SB2957 requires written verification from primary care physician "who has examined the applicant no more than ninety days prior to submission of the application" that applicant is not a danger to self or others. So if one were to buy 4 firearms per year, on a quarterly basis, one would have to make 4 (four) separate appointments with your doctor each year to get your written notes so the Hawaii governmental authorities will allow you to exercise a fundamental individual God-given natural right protected by the Second Amendment of the United Stated Constitution. That makes sense. If there is really something magical about mental health and guns and 90 days, then shouldn't, to be logically consistent, everyone owning a gun have to undergo such a "psychological fitness" examination every 90 days whether they purchase any new firearms or not? Or is there something magical about a "new" firearm that doesn't apply to an already possessed "old" firearm? What about people who drive cars? Or have prescription medicines in the medicine cabinets that could be used to overdose? What about people who have plant or insect poisons at home? What about people who have knives in their home? Waht about people who have hammers in their homes? The list of “dangerous weapons” is long. Why don't you just require a weekly evaluation by a Big-Brother-approved "physician" who will verify whether a citizen is fit for citizenship, or needs to be "re-educated"? If the criteria for your legislation is “danger to themselves or others”, why limit such required examinations to only those people who acquire one particular type of dangerous implement? Please explain the rationale behind that discrimination.

So if a person gets a "bad review" in their written note and they are not allowed to purchase a new weapon, shouldn't there be a provision in the bill that upon such a "bad review" that law enforcement is then required to immediately go and confiscate all their previously purchased and registered firearms? Or, if you were to actually be logically consistent, law enforcement would be required to go confiscate all their implements (cars, poisons, prescription meds, knives, hammers, rocks, etc.) with which said person could prove to be “a danger to themselves or others”? I thought so.

Let's look at the definitions:

"Danger to others" means a serious threat or attempt to injure another person with the use of a firearm or other dangerous or deadly weapon.

There is no agreed upon, nor effective nor reliable, diagnostic methodology by which such a conclusion can be reached. Not by a psychiatrist, much less a general practitioner. E.g. Adam Lanza: never deemed a threat to self or others despite continual involvement in the mental health system for over 15 years: killed 26 people (20 under the age of 7) in a few minutes. Of course there is also no evidence to substantiate all the diagnoses of people who were deemed a “danger to themselves or others” who never did anything dangerous to themselves or others. There seems to be some kind of magical thinking here, having lead to a belief that physicians are superhuman and can do things and/or have knowledge that no humans can really do or know. Please provide the scientific peer-reviewed evidence that such diagnoses (positive or negative) are accurate.

What if the plan to harm others involves use of hands, fists or feet? Are those "dangerous or deadly weapons"? (Assuming the person is not registered as a martial arts expert.) What if the examination subject's plan is to drown someone? They pass the test because they won't be using a "deadly weapon"? Please explain that one. Your proposed law seems to allow that some forms of “danger to self and others” are benign and not in need of notice. Please explain that.

"Danger to self" means a serious threat of, or attempted, suicide with the use of a firearm or other dangerous or deadly weapon.

So if you are going to jump off a cliff or jump off a bridge onto the freeway or take pills or swallow poison or run onto the highway in front of a car you're NOT a "danger to self"? Okay. Please explain that.

"Primary care physician" means a licensed physician who practices internal medicine, family practice, or pediatrics, and is designated by the patient as a primary care physician to the patient's insurance provider."

So if you don't have an insurance provider you don't have to undergo the psychological examination or get a written note? I notice there is no provision for a "physician assistant" (PA) nor for a "nurse practitioner" (NP) nor for anyone else who actually often does, more and more, the actual work in medical offices of interviewing, diagnosing and prescribing. Why not? If such persons are entrusted with making all other health diagnoses for clients, why not the psychological evaluation? It's almost as if this legislation "making work" for physicians. Please explain.
 
Withdraw SB2957, it is irrational, illogical, will have no bearing on crime, and there is no evidence to support it.
 
Thank you,
"punaperson"

And just look at all the horrid gun laws that Obama pushed through as socialist dictator! I was afraid his jack booted thugs were going to confiscate my tweezers!

Didn't he do that right after he closed Guantanamo?

(Sigh) Sorry to be sarcastic. I just stopped believing anything that issues forth from the mouth of politicians ages ago, publicly or privately.  Rarely we have individuals that push and pull everyone in a certain direction but for the most part its an larger system that is more or less predictable.

Like Obamacare. We have it for one reason only: the health insurance system was going to collapse under the weight of the baby boomers if ~something~ wasn't done. It is not and never was about making sure everyone is taken care of, it was always about making sure the health insurers didn't fold and cause another crisis. It wasn't rammed through on Obama's charismatic charm or Hitler-esque totalitarianism... it was crunched through because the climate was about right for the insurers and the public to grudgingly accept it. We still have the most expensive health care / insurance system on the planet - its just that more folks are chipping into the kitty to help shareholders line their pock... I mean, pay for it. That it happened under Obama had more to do with timing than anything else. Mitt Romney did the ~same thing~ as governor... had he been elected the discussion would have been different but the results likely about the same.

Obama might believe that people don't have the right to own guns. So far congress has pretty much been able to keep him from wiping his own behind so I'm not too worried about his opinions. Nothing about this administration has demonstrated a capacity to get things done other than the basics. And even that congress has made as difficult as it possibly can.

The democrats would be fools to follow any kind of anti-gun agenda any further than lip service to their constituents. It might win favors at the state level for some districts but at a national level it will cost them dearly this year and in 2016. More local stupidity like NYC, CO and idiocy like SB2957 is likely but I doubt we'll see a serious push at the national level. Nothing would energize the GOP base more than that and they know it.

And just look at all the horrid gun laws that Obama pushed through as socialist dictator! I was afraid his jack booted thugs were going to confiscate my tweezers!

Didn't he do that right after he closed Guantanamo?

(Sigh) Sorry to be sarcastic. I just stopped believing anything that issues forth from the mouth of politicians ages ago, publicly or privately.  Rarely we have individuals that push and pull everyone in a certain direction but for the most part its an larger system that is more or less predictable.

Like Obamacare. We have it for one reason only: the health insurance system was going to collapse under the weight of the baby boomers if ~something~ wasn't done. It is not and never was about making sure everyone is taken care of, it was always about making sure the health insurers didn't fold and cause another crisis. It wasn't rammed through on Obama's charismatic charm or Hitler-esque totalitarianism... it was crunched through because the climate was about right for the insurers and the public to grudgingly accept it. We still have the most expensive health care / insurance system on the planet - its just that more folks are chipping into the kitty to help shareholders line their pock... I mean, pay for it. That it happened under Obama had more to do with timing than anything else. Mitt Romney did the ~same thing~ as governor... had he been elected the discussion would have been different but the results likely about the same.

Obama might believe that people don't have the right to own guns. So far congress has pretty much been able to keep him from wiping his own behind so I'm not too worried about his opinions. Nothing about this administration has demonstrated a capacity to get things done other than the basics. And even that congress has made as difficult as it possibly can.

The democrats would be fools to follow any kind of anti-gun agenda any further than lip service to their constituents. It might win favors at the state level for some districts but at a national level it will cost them dearly this year and in 2016. More local stupidity like NYC, CO and idiocy like SB2957 is likely but I doubt we'll see a serious push at the national level. Nothing would energize the GOP base more than that and they know it.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean no one is out to get you...

The main reason the laws Obama, Biden, and Feinstein wanted to have passed desperately did not pass is because the NRA, its supporters, and other pro 2A groups showed them their rights are more important than a gun-grabbing knee jerk reaction to a school shooting by a mentally disturbed young man.

Do not be fooled.  They will continue to push their agenda until they catch the 2A supporters off guard.  At that point, it will be too late to figure out they really are after the guns.

Every nation in modern history disarms the populace, paving the way for state control of their lives.  Are we that arrogant , or ignorant, to truly believe our country is immune?  Are we that different that the same political processes that enslaved so many others, including many today, have no effect in the US?

Not at all fooled. I didn't say we should all go hang out at the beach and ignore the world.

I said I wasn't worried.

edit: To clarify, I'm not worried about a real push for gun control legislation at the federal level until after the 2016 election. If the dems get an unlikely landslide this year that might change. It might also change if there is some horrible mass shooting again, too.